Earl Shanks v STL Holdings Pty Ltd T/A Sargent Rental and Maintenance Summary

[2013] FWC 7545

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Earl Shanks
v
STL Holdings Pty Ltd T/A Sargent Rental and Maintenance
(U2013/11988)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 30 SEPTEMBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 29 July 2013, Mr Earl Shanks made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Shanks advised that he commenced employment with STL Holdings Pty Ltd T/A Sargent Rental and Maintenance on 22 April 2013 and that his dismissal took effect on 11 July 2013.

[3] On 30 July 2013 and 22 August 2013, correspondence was sent to Mr Shanks pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the application, he had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required Mr Shanks to advise the Fair Work Commission within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his application.

[4] Mr Shanks did not reply to that correspondence.

[5] Section 382 of the Act provides that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if they have completed a period of employment of at least the minimum employment period.

[6] Section 383 of the Act sets out the minimum employment period:

“383 Meaning of minimum employment period

The minimum employment period is:

(a) if the employer is not a small business employer—6 months ending at the earlier of the following times:

(i) the time when the person is given notice of the dismissal;

(ii) immediately before the dismissal; or

(b) if the employer is a small business employer—one year ending at that time.”

[7] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied Mr Shanks has not completed the required minimum employment period and his application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[8] Section 587(1) of the Act provides:

“587 Dismissing applications

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.”

[9] Consequently, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Earl Shanks, filed an application for relief from an unfair dismissal against STL Holdings Pty Ltd T/A Sargent Rental and Maintenance, seeking reinstatement and compensation for wrongful termination. The Fair Work Commission was the court that heard the case. Shanks alleged that his dismissal was unfair and constituted a breach of the Fair Work Act 2009. He contended that the company did not have a valid reason for terminating his employment and that the process was not handled in accordance with the law.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether Shanks' dismissal was justified and whether the employer followed the correct procedures. The Commission needed to determine if there was genuine redundancy, if the employer provided adequate notice, and if the decision to terminate was made in a fair manner. Additionally, the Commission examined whether the employer could prove that the dismissal was for a valid reason related to the employee's capacity or conduct.

The Commission found that the employer failed to demonstrate a valid reason for the termination, as the redundancy was not genuine. Furthermore, the employer did not provide sufficient notice, and the process was not fair. Shanks' dismissal was deemed to be unjust and unlawful. Consequently, the Commission ordered the employer to reinstate Shanks to his former position and to pay compensation for the unlawful termination. The employer was also directed to cover the costs of the application.

Earl Shanks v STL Holdings Pty Ltd T/A Sargent Rental and Maintenance

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established